Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
An old comment of mine:
Going back to JakeS' logic
The intuitively obvious corollary to this is that we need to get out of the private pension funds mindset - by their very nature, private pension funds make Joe Schmoe an investor in the securities markets. And Joe Schmoe knows nothing about investing in the securities market, so he shouldn't be doing it.
the way I put it is this:

We understand that "widows and orphans" shouldn't be investing in risky assets and so we create "pension funds" subjected to strict regulations on the kinds of assets they may hold (e.g., no "speculative" or worse-rated bonds) and the kinds of strategies they may pursue (e.g., no "short-selling") so that they may be "safe" for widows and orphans to invest in. But that means that we regulate pension funds to behave like widows and orphans, so they get scalped by sharks like widows and orphans would.

In addition, the whole "private pension fund mindset" is predicated on the argument that public pensions are insolvent because they will eventually be unable to pay the promised premiums. We are told that instead we should invest in private pension funds. But the question arises: if the government is not going to be able to raise the necessary cash to meet its pension liabilities, where is the stock market supposed to get all that cash from? After all, the government and the stock market share in the same GDP pool. In addition, the government's "cost of capital" is lowest (in absolute terms considering "cost of debt" and relatively speaking when "risk-adjusted").

(with added emphasis)

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 21st, 2010 at 08:50:26 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

JakeS 4


Occasional Series